That's different from having an opinion on the tenth amendment and whether or not it applies here.

That's the difference between you and me. You somehow think that your having a passionate opinion on a topic means that you have an in-depth understanding of constitutionality. I don't pretend to do so. I leave that to the experts to sort out.

You also cited Aaron v Cooper. Again, should you have refrained from giving your opinion in that instance because you had no idea what you were talking about?

I'm glad you clarified that you are completely unqualified to give opinions on anything related to the constitution, so we can ignore any opinions you give in the future related to the constitution or how laws and decisions apply.

That's different from having an opinion on the tenth amendment and whether or not it applies here.

That's the difference between you and me. You somehow think that your having a passionate opinion on a topic means that you have an in-depth understanding of constitutionality. I don't pretend to do so. I leave that to the experts to sort out.

The Constitution is not a verbose document. I don't see why it should take years of specialized training to be able to understand it... The people that wrote it certainly were not trained in Constitutional law, and many of them weren't trained in law at all... Madison himself studied law a bit in college, but was not a lawyer.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2013 11:48:00 AM (view original):The Constitution is not a verbose document. I don't see why it should take years of specialized training to be able to understand it... The people that wrote it certainly were not trained in Constitutional law, and many of them weren't trained in law at all... Madison himself studied law a bit in college, but was not a lawyer.

If it's so simple, then any issues on constitutionality that make it to SCOTUS should always result in an immediate 9-0 decision.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2013 9:27:00 AM (view original):So, if SCOTUS has not ruled or been asked to rule, is a law unconstitutional?

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand. BL thinks DOMA is unconstitutional because he believes it goes against the 10th amendment. tec does not, because he interprets the 10th amendment in a different way. It's up for debate.

That is not correct. I have made no comment on the constitutionality (or not) of DOMA.

My only comment is that a process muct be followed before a law is conclusively and definitively deemed unconstitutional.

That process has not yet fully played out. DOMA is still active and still being enforced.

Unconstitutional laws cannot be active and enforced. Therefore, DOMA must be treated as constitutional until deemed otherwise.

When you stated that you didn't consider regulating marriage a "power", I assumed that was your take on the 10th amendment as it applies here. And good to know you won't be arguing things pertaining to the constitution moving forward.

A law can be considered unconstitutional and still an active law. If DOMA is thrown out, and you ask one of the judges "was DOMA unconstitutional yesterday?" he would say "Yes, that law should not have been passed."

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2013 9:27:00 AM (view original):So, if SCOTUS has not ruled or been asked to rule, is a law unconstitutional?

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand. BL thinks DOMA is unconstitutional because he believes it goes against the 10th amendment. tec does not, because he interprets the 10th amendment in a different way. It's up for debate.

That is not correct. I have made no comment on the constitutionality (or not) of DOMA.

My only comment is that a process muct be followed before a law is conclusively and definitively deemed unconstitutional.

That process has not yet fully played out. DOMA is still active and still being enforced.

Unconstitutional laws cannot be active and enforced. Therefore, DOMA must be treated as constitutional until deemed otherwise.

When you stated that you didn't consider regulating marriage a "power", I assumed that was your take on the 10th amendment as it applies here. And good to know you won't be arguing things pertaining to the constitution moving forward.

A law can be considered unconstitutional and still an active law. If DOMA is thrown out, and you ask one of the judges "was DOMA unconstitutional yesterday?" he would say "Yes, that law should not have been passed."

Since we don't currently know the ultimate fate of DOMA, it's a bit premature to unequivocally state as absolute fact that it is unconstitutional.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2013 9:27:00 AM (view original):So, if SCOTUS has not ruled or been asked to rule, is a law unconstitutional?

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand. BL thinks DOMA is unconstitutional because he believes it goes against the 10th amendment. tec does not, because he interprets the 10th amendment in a different way. It's up for debate.

That is not correct. I have made no comment on the constitutionality (or not) of DOMA.

My only comment is that a process muct be followed before a law is conclusively and definitively deemed unconstitutional.

That process has not yet fully played out. DOMA is still active and still being enforced.

Unconstitutional laws cannot be active and enforced. Therefore, DOMA must be treated as constitutional until deemed otherwise.

When you stated that you didn't consider regulating marriage a "power", I assumed that was your take on the 10th amendment as it applies here. And good to know you won't be arguing things pertaining to the constitution moving forward.

A law can be considered unconstitutional and still an active law. If DOMA is thrown out, and you ask one of the judges "was DOMA unconstitutional yesterday?" he would say "Yes, that law should not have been passed."

Since we don't currently know the ultimate fate of DOMA, it's a bit premature to unequivocally state as absolute fact that it is unconstitutional.

It's premature to unequivocally state as absolute fact that DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, yes. It's never too early or late for someone to have an opinion on it though. Since the Constitution isn't exactly verbose, a lot of things are up for interpretation, which is why whether something is constitutional or not is often up for debate.